Hasan's victims: Uncle Sam's, too
The Obama administration's reprehensible refusal to label clear acts of terrorism as just that — terrorism — is victimizing Americans already victimized by just such an act committed on U.S. soil.
Various media outlets report that because the Army categorized the 2009 shooting rampage that left 13 dead and 32 injured at Fort Hood in Texas as “workplace violence,” survivors can't get combat pay, as much as $800 more in monthly disability pay, Purple Heart retirement or other benefits that soldiers wounded on battlefields routinely receive.
Meanwhile, Maj. Nidal Hasan has continued to collect his Army paycheck under Army rules that say soldiers suspected of crimes get paid until convicted. Undoubtedly the shooter who shouted “God is great” in Arabic will be convicted.
Had Mr. Hasan been a civilian employee, the Army could have suspended his pay a week after the massacre. Instead, he's expected to collect more than $290,000 by the July 1 start of opening statements in his trial.
Victims are struggling to make ends meet. They shouldn't have to. The Army must change its label for the massacre — which certainly made Fort Hood a battlefield — so these survivors can get all benefits they deserve.
The Obama administration, which coddles the terrorist that Hasan plainly is while stiffing his victims, must get its repugnantly out-of-order priorities straight — posthaste.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.